Clive Barker

One of the best horror writers ever. He can make anything cringe worthy. If you want to be really freaked out, read his Books of Blood, they are pretty horrific, but then that's the point!

How could anyone compare Clive Barker to Stephen King? Aside from the first couple of 'Gunslinger' books, Stephen King's books are generally forgettable rubbish. Crass and one-dimensional. I remember picking up one of "the Books of Blood" series from a box of old books in my parents garage when I was a teenager. I was expecting an average King cringefest, but as I delved into it, I found it to be like nothing I had ever read. Barker can weave disgust, sexual taboo, bitter-sweet longing and true horror in a way unlike anyone else I've ever read.

2.5 Barker is rather original, imaginative, and, of all of the horror writers of the last three or four decades, he has the most technical skill as a writer in my opinion- very florid and impressive prose. The problem is, his plots and characters just don't interest me all that much.

An amazing writer.I total love his books.They are so imaginative.

At his best, Barker is an enjoyable, diverting read, and does have an indisputably vivid imagination. However, his stories generally don't have much resonance with me, and I've pretty much forgotten them not long after I've read them. I don't necessarily mean that as criticism...in the early to mid 70's, there was a cheap, cheasy horror-comic published under such titles as "Weird" and "Terror Tales" that either re-printed gory vampire-werewolf-ghoul pulp-comics from the 50's (they were sort of the bastard children of the legendary E.C. comics), or wrote their own sub-standard stories. I loved reading these comics...they entertained me and they served their purpose as inexpensive escapism competently enough...but I never made the mistake of thinking I was reading anything laudatory in a cultural sense or destined for artistic immortality. I pretty much feel the same way about the stories of Barker, or King, for that matter. Although I do think Barker has a more original imagination tha... Read more

Barker is my favorite author, period. I have loved everything I've ever read from him. Can't say the same about King or Rice. Very imaginative. Very vivid images come to mind when reading.

It would seem most people can not resist comparing Barker to King. This is where problems occur. King is a boogeyman, while Barker is a necromancer. The prose, the story, the characters are all meant to be looked at in different lights. Don't get me wrong, I am definately a King fan, but Barker is a superior imaginer. If you look on the shelves at a bookstore, you'll find many who strive to recreate what King has done. That's because his work is easy to replicate, (or so they mistaken to think so.) No one tries to write like Clive Barker. It's impossible.

Barker has lost some of his touch, but his earlier work like Imagica, The Great and Secret Show, and Weaveworld are all VERY impressive. Equally great were the Books of Blood. I haven't read anything from Barker after the terrible "Everville"; we shall see if he has reclaimed his former glory. UPDATE: After trying Barker's "Sacrament" recently, he is officially fired from my reading lists. This man has lost his mind and his skills have dwindled dramatically in recent years. His early works are still quite brilliant in the horror genre and I will re-read them at some point, but I will not read anything new from this author.

Anyone who can write the book titled, "The Great and Secret Show" is a wonderful author. Clive Barker is so talented that it is almost scary. This book was so captivating, that I truly had a hard time putting it down. Clive Barker is not for everyone, but I highly recommend his work, as he is a genius.

I suppose that every contemporary horror author must at some point be compared to Stephen King, so I will say that of the two, Clive Barker is better. The main thing that strikes me about Barker's prose is that, unlike King's, it is grounded very much in the real world. King's stories take place in some alternate version of earth (it's not overtly stated, but there is something a little eerie about King's America). Barker, on the other hand, has such ordinary characters and situations that it lulls the reader into a sense of banality before stripping that away once the horror begins. For example, if you remove the horror and fantasy, Clive's books would still be interesting fiction. You could not do this with King's novels, as the horror and unease are deeply infused in the prose. I find Barker's characters much more realistic, as they are not simply split into the Good and the Evil people (as in King's oeuvre). He seems to be much more imaginative, weaving fantasy seamlessly th... Read more

I have never read a Clive Barker novel in less than a month, and I never finish one without letting out a contemptable groan at the end. This is one man that should have stuck with writing short stories. The longer one of his novels; the more bogged down it becomes. Mr. Barker adds in too many useless details about too many useless characters. What starts out as a genuinely interesting idea at the beginning of a book is usually a jumble of nonsensical, wordy mush by Chapter three. There are just too many individual stories going on about too many different people, and nothing ever connects until very late in the book. All of his full-size novels lack real focus. Many elements seem like they were added in merely for the sake of shock value, rather than lending any real substance to what the book is trying to say. What Barker really needs is a good editor; someone to help him pare down his projects into single flowing stories with characters that are all moving toward common goals.

I noticed the comment about a "slow buildup"...one of the reasons I switched to Clive from Stephen King is that Stephen could use up about 10 pages telling you about some inconsequential thing that happened in someone's childhood.

I have read many of Clive Barkers novel and really enjoyed them. I have also watched almost all of his movies. My boyfriend and I are great Clive Barker fans.

Clive Barker is one of the best horror authors I have ever read. He is a complete and total genius and his work inspires me to write my own horror stories.

Clive Barker has an ability to take you places that combines the best of art, religion, and mythology. Imajica is the greatest work I have ever read.

This man is all gore and no "heart & soul". Not a very good writer in general. I've noticed that the die-hard Trekkies are the crowd that enjoys this author's work.

The books of blood are the best contemporary horror short stories ever written.

He has an incredible talent of entwining Horror, Science Fiction and Spirituality. His books make you think that the impossible may just be possible. Take a break and lose yourself in one of his books..it will make you think.

Barker is very close to Rice in prose and presentation...both have an uncanny knack of using 95 percent of a novel for a slow, methodical build-up, which results in the last 5 percent that doesn't pay off in the least. I started reading Barker after Stephen King's famous promotion of him, and I would plow through the colourless characters and lack of action in each book thinking "Man, this book has got to get better sometime". Unfortunately, his books taught me a axiom about novels...a bad book never gets any better. And a bad writer like Barker tends to never get any better. Avoid him.

This man should learn to edit his novels. He is hardly "the future of horror" as Stephen King was once quoted as saying -- or if he is, that future has already come and gone.

Clive Barker is one of the most thrilling of all authors.

His books are even more horrifying than the movies.

Bad. the horrors are just not believable.